Aletho News

An Old Nuclear Problem Creeps Back

By MATTHEW L. WALD | New York Times | June 7, 2010

The American nuclear industry, primed to begin new construction projects for the first time in 30 years, is about as eager for an operating problem at an old reactor as the oil industry was for a well blowout on the eve of opening the Atlantic coast to oil drilling.

Nonetheless, a nuclear reactor where a hidden leak caused near-catastrophic corrosion in 2002 has experienced a second bout of the same problem.

In 2002, the plant, Davis-Besse, in Oak Harbor, Ohio, developed leaks in parts on the vessel head, allowing cooling water from inside the vessel, at 2,200 pounds per square inch of pressure, to leak out.

The cooling water contains boric acid, which is used to control the speed of the nuclear reaction, and the acid ate away a chunk of the steel the size of a football, leaving nothing but a thin stainless-steel liner to maintain the reactor’s integrity.

Nuclear experts characterized it as a startling near-miss. Plants around the country had experienced leaks in the vessel head, but none nearly this serious.

The plant was shut for 14 months. First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, which owns it, eventually brought in a replacement head of similar design from a reactor in Midland, Mich., that had been abandoned during construction.

The company assumed it had solved the problem. But recently the new vessel head showed the same leakage pattern. Once again, the parts prone to leaking are nozzles through which the control rods for the reactor pass. When the rods are inserted, they choke off the flow of neutrons that sustains the reaction; when they are withdrawn, the reactor starts up. But the nozzles are prone to a problem called “stress corrosion cracking,’’ leading to the leaks.

It is not clear why Davis-Besse’s problem is more serious than other plants have had, although it surfaced in 2002 that First Energy had won approval to delay inspections that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wanted. (When the problem became clear, those approvals set off a crisis of confidence for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)

Another problem may be the metal used in the original nozzles — the same metal used in the nozzles on the Midland reactor. While the vessel head from Midland “didn’t have any hours on it,’’ said Todd Schneider, a spokesman for Davis-Besse, it is of an older design.

The reactor has 69 nozzles, and the utility has modified 24 of them in preparation for starting up again in a few weeks. The long-term fix is yet another vessel head, with nozzles of a sturdier alloy, to be installed in 2014.

In the interim, the company said, it will opt for a shorter production run. It had been operating with one refueling every 24 months, but when it gets going again, its run will be about 100 days shorter, because “we want to be able to look at it sooner,” Mr. Schneider said.

And the reactor will run at a very slightly lower temperature, about two or three degrees less than the usual 606.5 degrees Fahrenheit at the vessel head, to slow down any damaging chemical reaction, he added. Refueling of the reactor began on Monday.

June 8, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

Strontium discovered in soil surrounding Vermont Yankee leak

By Terri Hallenbeck • Burlington Free Press • May 22, 2010

MONTPELIER — Vermont Yankee reported Friday afternoon that the radioactive isotope strontium has been located in the soil near where tritium had been discovered leaking at the Vernon nuclear power plant in January.

Strontium-90 was discovered in soil that had been excavated from the area of the leak, Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said. It was noted in an analysis the company received Monday from a soil sample taken March 17, he said. The state Health Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission were notified Thursday, he said.

Former nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen of Burlington characterized strontium-90 as the most harmful of the radioactive materials that have been found around the leak. If it comes into contact with humans, strontium-90 concentrates in the bone and causes leukemia, he said.

“This is the worst,” Gundersen said. “This is the most harmful, the hardest-to-detect and the most soluble.”

The existence of strontium-90 will increase the cost of eventual decommissioning of the plant, Gundersen said.

Along with tritium, Vermont Yankee has acknowledged the discovery of cobalt-690, cesium-137, manganese-54 and zinc-65.

The state Health Department noted the strontium discovery in its updates on the tritium leak Friday. The department emphasized that the strontium has been found in the soil but not in groundwater or in drinking water.

Smith said Vermont Yankee will continue to test for various radionuclides in the soil and monitoring wells and can’t say yet whether the strontium has all been discovered.

“They’re going to have a lot more digging to do to capture it,” Gundersen predicted.

Vermont Yankee revealed heightened levels of tritium in monitoring wells on the plant grounds in January based on samples taken in November. The company found sources of the leak in underground pipes in February and March and stopped the leaks. The company has since been excavating and removing contaminated soil.

May 24, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

It’s Not Just Vermont: State Lawmakers Do Not Share Congress’ Love for the Nuclear Industry

It was front-page news across America this February when the Vermont Senate voted to shut down the troubled Vermont Yankee reactor in 2012.  But what most Americans don’t know is that the nuclear industry also lost all of its seven other major state legislative pushes this year – going 0-8 and putting yet another nail in the coffin of the myth of the “nuclear renaissance” in the United States, according to an analysis by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS).

Even as some in Congress would lavish tens of billions of dollars – and even unlimited – loan guarantees on the embattled nuclear power industry, state lawmakers in Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Vermont and West Virginia and Wisconsin said a firm “no” this year to more nuclear power.  The legislative issues ranged from attempts by nuclear industry lobbyists to overturn bans on new reactors to “construction work in progress” (CWIP) assessments to pay for new reactors to reclassifying nuclear power as a “renewable resource.”

How bad is the nuclear power industry doing in state legislatures?  In 2009, the industry went 0-5 with reactor moratorium overturn efforts in Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, and West Virginia.  Even after stepping up its on-the-ground efforts in 2010 with paid lobbyists and extensive public relations efforts in states like Wisconsin, the industry again came up with nothing.

Michael Mariotte, executive director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service said:

”The much-hyped nuclear ‘renaissance’ is grinding to a halt in state after state. Too many lawmakers and journalists in Washington, D.C., have been blinded by the nuclear industry’s $650 million lobbying campaign. But the state elected officials closest to the public know that the American people long ago rejected nuclear power as an electricity source and they’re continuing to vote against the nuclear industry. The public wants clean, safe, reliable and affordable electricity, not dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear power, and most state officials continue to show they understand that.”

Dave Kraft, director, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Chicago, IL, said:

“For the last three years nuclear power advocates in the Illinois legislature have tried unsuccessfully to repeal the state’s 1987 nuclear construction moratorium law.  Illinois is better off for their abject failure.  This moratorium has successfully protected the state from the threat of additional nuclear waste build-up, a job made even more necessary and pressing today than in 1987 with the cancellation of the Yucca Mt. project, the Federal Government’s only plan for permanent disposal of these deadly, long-lived wastes.  Repealing a law that successfully protects Illinois under today’s much more dire radioactive circumstances is irrational, irresponsible and dangerous.”

Daniel Endreson, program coordinator, Clean Water Action Midwest Office, Minneapolis, MN, said:

“Nuclear proponents have once again attempted to repeal the moratorium on new nuclear plants in Minnesota. This year nuclear proponents were faced with the prospect to allow the moratorium to be lifted, but with conditions which would have protected ratepayers and the environment. Instead of accepting this option, proponents instead chose to quickly abandon their attempts. Even though proponents like to claim nuclear is clean, safe and cheap energy source, they appeared unwilling to prove these claims. This should be a signal to all Minnesotans that new nuclear is the wrong direction for our state and that we should remain focused on developing actual clean, home-grown energy.”

Sandy Bahr, chapter director, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, Phoenix, AZ, said:

“The last two years bills have been introduced in the Arizona Legislature to include nuclear power in the definition of renewable energy.  Not only is that incorrect, it is just plain wrong and would be a disaster for Arizona‘s growing renewable energy industry.  Solar energy industry representatives, small businesses, and even utilities told legislators and the governor this was a bad idea and a huge step backwards, which resulted in the bill being withdrawn.”

The following is an overview of the nuclear industry’s failed state legislative efforts in 2010:

• Arizona. SolarCity, Kyocera Solar, Inc. and Suntech Power Holdings joined with other solar energy providers in February to warn that if Arizona House Bill 2701 (HB 2701) was passed into law, it would have jeopardized Arizona‘s entire renewable energy industry. The failed HB 2701 proposed to replace the existing Renewable Energy Standard (RES) in Arizona with one that would allow utilities to use existing nuclear and hydroelectric power to meet the RES requirements, eliminate distributed generation requirements within the bill and eliminate any interim energy requirements between now and 2025.  According to the state’s solar industry leaders, the bill’s inclusion of non-renewables in the definition of renewable energy, new “double regulation” and other changes to the RES would have halted all new renewable energy development in the state, undercut one of Arizona‘s fastest growing industries and put thousands of existing and future jobs in jeopardy as the state’s economy recovers from the effects of the recession.
• Illinois. Another attempt to repeal the Illinois nuclear construction moratorium failed to move in the state legislature.  The Illinois House chose not to move on Rep. JoAnn Osmond‘s HB875; it was never voted on.  Attempts to advance the bill in the Senate as an amendment to another measure failed.
• Iowa. The nuclear industry sought the authority to impose a CWIP fee to finance a possible second nuclear reactor in the state.   That proposal was shot down by state lawmakers.  Instead, a watered-down measure, HB 2399, was signed into law, authorizing one of Iowa‘s utilities to collect $15 million from ratepayers over the next three years to conduct feasibility studies.
• Kentucky. Senate Bill 26 would have overturned a 1984 moratorium on the building of nuclear reactors.   The measure died in the House, which elected to keep the state’s more than quarter-century old moratorium in place.
• Minnesota. Efforts in the Minnesota Legislature to lift the state’s ban on new nuclear reactors are now dying in the waning days of the legislative session.  However, the measure that remains alive for the moment bans CWIP financing arrangements, and has been described by the nuclear industry as so restrictive that it would not actually permit new reactor construction projects in the state.
• Vermont. After allegations of mismanagement and ongoing concern about radioactive tritium leaks, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 in February to shut down the nuclear reactor in 2012, marking the first time a state legislature has voted to close an existing nuclear reactor.  Entergy is seeking to relicense the 40-year-old reactor, which faces much criticism for the tritium leaks, collapsed cooling towers and other problems.
• West Virginia. West Virginia‘s official ban on the construction of nuclear reactors remains unchanged. In February, the West Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee by a lopsided voice vote killed a move to eliminate the prohibition.
• Wisconsin. When they elected to pour substantial funds into Wisconsin to prevail in the state legislature, the nuclear industry appeared confident of success.  Wisconsin legislators included a provision to gut the nuclear moratorium law in a climate bill during the 2010 legislative session, but their efforts failed when the session ended on April 22nd, without the bill coming up for a vote. Wisconsin‘s existing state law requires that any proposed nuclear power facility be proven economical for ratepayers and that federally licensed waste repository be available to safely store spent nuclear fuel.  In practice, affordable power and long-term waste disposal are two requirements that nuclear power is incapable of meeting.

ABOUT Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), a 32-year old public interest organization, was founded to be the national information and networking center for citizens and environmental activists concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation and sustainable energy issues (http://www.nirs.org).

CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, for NIRS, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.

May 14, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

DOE’s Nuclear Loan Guarantee Bailout Program In Question Due To Negative Court Ruling in Georgia

Other U.S. Nuclear Reactor Projects In Line for Loan Guarantees Also Pose Major Risks to Taxpayers

Press Release* | May 6, 2010

WASHINGTON, PRNewswire-USNewswire — The only taxpayer-backed loan guarantee bailout to be offered for new nuclear reactors – $8.3 billion for two reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia – should be rescinded now that the project was dealt a setback in a decision by a Georgia judge that state officials illegally certified the project, according to the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) and Public Citizen.

The groups also noted that, despite the push in Congress for more controversial loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors, the other two leading contenders for such bailouts – the South Texas Project at Bay City on the Gulf Coast (114 miles from San Antonio and 90 miles from Houston) and Calvert Cliffs in Maryland – are more unsettled than ever and now pose an even greater risk to U.S. taxpayers.

As such, the groups also said that Department of Energy (DOE) should refrain from offering any new loan guarantees to nuclear projects before overhauling its evaluation process.

DOE has stated that the $10 billion remaining in loan guarantee authority is only sufficient for one of the two projects and has requested another $9 billion in the appropriations supplemental to cover the second project. In its FY2011 budget request, the Obama Administration has already requested $36 billion in loan guarantee authority, a tripling of the nuclear loan guarantee program.

The groups detailed the setbacks at the Georgia project and other two federal bailout candidates as follows:

VOGTLE

Last Friday, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy won its lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court that aimed to protect Georgians from unfair utility costs in connection with the proposed construction of two new nuclear reactors at Vogtle near Waynesboro, Georgia. The Court found that the Georgia Public Service Commission acted illegally in violation of Georgia state law. The Commission’s approval last year during the certification process for the proposed new Vogtle reactors was put into question.

At Friday’s hearing, Judge Wendy Shoob heard SACE’s allegation that the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) erred as a matter of law by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required. Specifically, the group alleged that the PSC did not provide the required written justifications for its findings that would “afford an intelligent review” by the courts. The PSC instead relied on statements void of any reasoning. The Court ruled in favor of SACE and found that the PSC acted illegally in violation of Georgia state law by failing to make all appropriate findings and to support those findings with a concise and explicit statement of the facts. Just prior to the decision, Southern Company had yet to accept the conditional guarantee and had requested another month to decide. On Wednesday, the Court issued the final order, remanding the case back to the PSC. (Pdf)

Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said: “This ruling raises further concerns over the Obama Administration’s controversial decision in February to award an $8.3 billion taxpayer-financed conditional loan guarantee for Southern Company’s proposed Vogtle project, the first to be offered one in the country. Given this decision and the economic risks to U.S. taxpayers of this project, DOE should rescind its offer of a loan guarantee. DOE needs to re-evaluate its ‘due-diligence’ procedures before offering any other loan guarantees. For example, how can a loan guarantee be offered before a reactor design is even certified as safe by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?”

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

The estimated cost for two NRG proposed reactors in Texas has risen from $5.8 billion in 2006 to a reported $18.2 billion at the end of 2009. As a result, the City of San Antonio pulled out of 85 percent of its investment in the project, leaving a void of as much as 33 percent of the project without investors.

Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) coalition, said: “The South Texas nuclear reactor is an economic disaster waiting to happen. The costs have trebled since the plant was proposed, NRG’s credit is just one notch above a junk bond rating, NRG’s partner sued them for fraud and no one wants to buy shares due to the fast-rising costs. The federal government may foolishly put taxpayer money behind the South Texas Project, but it can’t force anyone to buy the resulting overpriced power. Since Texas is deregulated, this plant will have to sell excess energy into the market. Expensive nuclear power must compete against cheaper and plentiful efficiency, wind and natural gas. As a result, the power it produces won’t be too cheap to meter — instead it will be too expensive to sell. If we give this turkey loan guarantees — taxpayers will get stuck with the bill.”

CALVERT CLIFFS

In 2007, the cost estimate for the proposed new reactor at Calvert Cliffs was $5 billion. Since then, UniStar has been reluctant to provide any public cost estimates for construction of the proposed Calvert Cliffs-3 reactor, but in August 2008 hearings before the Maryland Public Service Commission, CEO George Vanderheyden acknowledged that the company’s estimates are on the “upper end” of the $4,500 – $6,000 per kilowatt (kWh) level. For a 1600 megawatt reactor such as Calvert Cliffs-3, that would mean construction costs of about $9.6 billion. Even that high figure is likely to be low, since the Pennsylvania utility PPL has posted an estimate of $13-15 billion for precisely the same reactor design at Bell Bend in PA.

Additionally, the original drive for Calvert Cliffs preceded the recent decline in demand for power in the region. Power purchase agreements have yet to be established for Calvert Cliffs. Though “demand for power” does not need to be demonstrated by the reactor owner, demand for power in the region has dropped off due to the market downturn, obviating most or all of the need for Calvert Cliffs.

Allison Fisher, organizer for Public Citizen’s Energy Program, Public Citizen said: “Taxpayers should be outraged that they are being put on the hook for a reactor design that has been plagued with huge delays and cost overrun. The same reactor is currently under construction in Finland and France. Both projects have been plagued with delays and cost overruns. The Finnish project is three and a half years behind schedule with a 75 percent cost overrun thus far.”

*SOURCE Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, and Public Citizen

May 7, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

Florida nuclear project will take longer, cost more

By Fred Hiers |Ocala.com | May 6, 2010

There is good news and bad for Progress Energy Florida customers.

The utility company is asking Florida regulators for permission to cut its customers’ nuclear recovery costs next year by 21 percent, reducing the average nuclear cost of $6.99 per month on customer monthly bills down to $5.53. The reduction is part of Progress Energy’s decision to postpone major construction on its proposed Levy County nuclear plant.

The bad news is that postponing the project will likely mean construction costs will only increase when the utility decides to build the facility.

Company spokeswoman Cherie Jacobs said the company predicts the project, once slated to be on line by 2016 and cost about $17 billion, will now be operational no sooner than 2021 at a cost ranging between $17.2 billion to $22.5 billion.

The utility has about 65,000 customers in Marion County and more than 1.6 million throughout Florida.

The company’s new plan is to postpone rate hikes for the project until after its federal licensing is complete, rather than continue with construction at the scale and timetable it has been following until now.

Jacobs said several factors were considered when deciding to slow the project, including the Florida’s Public Service Commission’s recent decision to deny the utility a $500 million base rate hike request, and the agency’s recommendation to avoid any increases during the recession.

Another factor, Jacobs said, was recent credit rating agencies’ moves to downgrade the financial outlook of the utility because of the PSC’s rate decision. Florida’s economic downturn also played a role.

Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings all downgraded the utility’s ratings following the PSC’s decision not to approve rate hikes. Previously, the PSC had routinely approved most of the utility’s requests for more money.

Jacobs also said the uncertainty of the federal government’s energy plans, including carbon regulation, also made the future of how to proceed with the proposed Levy County nuclear plant unclear.

Jacobs said as the utility comes closer to when it needs to start construction of the plant, it will then decide whether to go forward with the project or scratch it.

The process of collecting money from customers for the project is allowed through Florida’s nuclear recovery cost legislation. The rule allows utilities to collect money for nuclear plant construction in advance of facility completion. The rule doesn’t place the utility under any obligation to complete the nuclear plant – or return customer money if the project fails.

The company has spent $600 million toward the project through 2009, $200 million of which came from customers, Jacobs said… Full article

May 7, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

French-Style Nuclear Reprocessing Will Not Solve U.S. Nuclear Waste Problems

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research | Press Release

Contrary to some prevailing opinion, reprocessing would not eliminate the need for a deep geologic disposal program to replace Yucca Mountain. It aggravates waste, proliferation, and cost problems. The volume of waste to be disposed of in deep geologic repository is increased about six times on a life-cycle basis in the French approach compared to the once-through no-reprocessing approach of the United States.

A new report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), a nonprofit scientific research group, shows that France uses less than 1 percent of the natural uranium resource, contrary to an impression among some policy makers. The report has several recommendations for President Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which was created to address U.S. nuclear waste issues after the administration’s cancellation of the Yucca Mountain program.

IEER President Dr. Arjun Makhijani, the author of the report: “In recent years, a ‘French fever’ has gripped the promoters of nuclear power in the United States. Praise of France’s management of spent fuel by reprocessing, including its use of the extracted plutonium as fuel in its nuclear power reactors, is now routinely heard. But it is a fantasy on the scale of the 1950s “too cheap to meter” mythology about nuclear power to imagine that 90 or 95 percent of the “energy value” of U.S. spent fuel can be extracted by reprocessing.”

Key IEER report findings include the following:

  --  On a life-cycle basis, French-style reprocessing and recycling increases
      the volume of waste that would have to be disposed of in a geologic
      repository. Reprocessing results in high-level radioactive waste and
      large volumes of Greater than Class C waste, both of which must be
      managed by deep geologic disposal. Their combined volume on a
      life-cycle basis is estimated to be about six times more than the
      no-reprocessing approach that is current U.S. policy, according to
      Department of Energy estimates. Low-level waste volume and waste
      transportation shipments are also estimated to increase several-fold.
  --  France spends about two cents per kilowatt-hour more for electricity
      generated from reprocessed plutonium compared to that generated from
      fresh uranium fuel.
  --  Attempting to combine reprocessing with breeder reactors to convert
      uranium in U.S. spent fuel in plutonium will create intolerable costs
      and risks. Reprocessing plus breeder reactors are much more expensive
      than light water reactors today, which are themselves expensive. Such
      a system is required to convert most of the uranium in spent fuel into
      a reactor fuel. Even a single penny in excess generation cost per
      kilowatt-hour in a breeder reactor-reprocessing system would lead to
      an added $8 trillion in costs to convert nearly all of the uranium in
      the 100,000 metric tons of U.S. spent into usable fuel. It would take
      hundreds of years to accomplish the task and require separation of
      tens of thousands of bombs equivalent of fissile material each year.
      The proliferation risks will be far greater than today.
  --  Adoption of a French-style reprocessing program would not eliminate the
      need for a deep geologic repository. Even complete fissioning of all
      actinides - an unrealistic proposition - will leave behind large
      amounts of very long-lived fission and activation products like
      iodine-129, cesium-135, and chlorine-36 that will pose risks far into
      the future -- much beyond the 24,100-year half-life of plutonium-239.
      In fact, France needs a geologic repository and opposition to one has
      been intense there. The French appear to dislike nuclear waste in
      their backyards as much as people in the United States.
  --  Proliferation risks are inherently part of the French (and any other)
      approach to reprocessing. Even advanced reprocessing technologies will
      not significantly reduce proliferation risks. For instance a study
      authored by scientists from DOE laboratories, including Los Alamos and
      Sandia, concluded that it would take only a few days or a few weeks
      for a proliferant country to make material for nuclear bombs once it had
      reprocessing plants. It found that new technologies, including
      electrometallurgical processing, resulted in "only a modest
      improvement in reducing proliferation risk over existing PUREX
      technologies and these modest improvements apply primarily for
      non-state actors." The IEER report concluded that electrometallurgical
      increases risks in other ways. For instance, it is far less difficult
      to conceal a plant than the present PUREX technology.

Other key findings include the following:

  --  Six decades of sodium cooled breeder reactor development has so far
      resulted in failure. Historical experience indicates no learning curve
      for the sodium cooled fast breeder reactor, which is the breeder
      technology that has received the most development. In fact, the two
      most recent large scale demonstration reactors, Superphénix in France
      and Monju in Japan, have been failures. Superphénix had a cumulative
      capacity factor of less than 8 percent before it was shut. Monju has
      been closed for almost 15 years, following a sodium fire, and has not
      generated a significant amount of electricity. Sodium cooled breeder
      reactors are not commercial today despite global expenditures on the
      order of $100 billion over six decades. They face a host of safety,
      proliferation and cost hurdles to overcome, some arising from the fact
      that they use liquid sodium for cooling. They are unlikely to be
      commercial in the near future. For instance, Japan's estimated date
      for commercialization of the sodium cooled fast breeder is 2050.
  --  Storage of liquid high-level wastes creates some risk of catastrophic
      releases of radioactivity. For instance, the Norwegian Radiation
      Protection Authority has estimated that a severe accident at the
      liquid waste storage facility in Sellafield, Britain, could result in
      cesium-137 contamination between 10 percent and 5,000 percent of that
      created in Norway by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident,
      which is the worst commercial accident to date, by far. A catastrophic
      release of radioactivity from a military high-level waste tank
      occurred in the Soviet Union in 1957.
  --  Using more than 1 percent of the uranium resource in a light water
      reactor system is technically impossible even with reprocessing and
      re-enrichment. In light water reactor systems, almost all the uranium
      resource winds up as depleted uranium or in spent fuel. Even with
      repeated reprocessing and re-enrichment, use of the natural uranium
      resource cannot be increased to more than 1 percent in such a system.
      A corollary is that the use of 90 to 95 percent of the uranium
      resource or of the material in the spent fuel is impossible in a light
      water reactor system even with reprocessing.

These are physical constraints that go with the system and also apply to France’s system.

The IEER report also sets out a number of recommendations for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future appointed by Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

  --  Spent fuel from existing reactors should be slated for direct geologic
      disposal without reprocessing of any kind; a suitable path for a
      scientifically sound program should be set forth.
  --  In the interim, spent fuel should be stored on site as safely as
      possible - in low density configurations while in pools and in
      hardened storage when moved to dry casks.
  --  Breeder reactors and reprocessing are not commercial after six decades
      of development of sodium cooled breeder reactors, and enormous
      expenditures. Given the long time frame for commercialization
      estimated even by some promoters, the proliferation risks, and efforts
      already made, it does not appear to be a good investment to spend more
      R&D money in that direction. Rather energy supply R&D resources should
      be focused on development and deployment of renewable energy
      technologies and energy efficiency.
  --  The Commission should request the French company AREVA and/or the
      French government to supply it with data on the present use of the
      natural uranium resource purchased for French nuclear reactors,
      including, specifically, the increases in fission fraction that have
      actually been achieved by reprocessing and recycling.
  --  The Commission should also request official data on Greater than Class
      C waste equivalent expected to be generated on a life-cycle basis in
      France, and the total volumes and heat generation of packaged waste
      expected to be disposed of in a deep geologic repository, including
      estimates of decommissioning waste.
  --  The Commission should investigate the public support or lack thereof
      for repository programs in France and Britain, the countries with the
      longest history of commercial spent fuel reprocessing.
  --  The Commission should make the same requests regarding the British
      reprocessing program.
  --  Official analyses of the mechanisms, probability, and consequences of
      large accidental releases of radioactivity to the atmosphere from
      liquid high-level waste storage in tanks should be requested from the
      French and British governments.

ABOUT IEER

On March 24, 2010, IEER held a news conference to release documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showing that the outgoing Bush Administration inked 11th-hour agreements with more than a dozen utilities involving 21 proposed nuclear reactors. As IEER noted, between the output of existing commercial nuclear reactors and the 21 proposed nuclear reactors covered by the agreements quietly signed by the outgoing Bush Administration, the U.S. already has agreed to store enough spent (used) reactor fuel to fill the equivalent of not one, but two, Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste repositories. For more information on the March 24th news event, go to

The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research provides policy-makers, journalists, and the public with understandable and accurate scientific and technical information on energy and environmental issues. IEER’s aim is to bring scientific excellence to public policy issues in order to promote the democratization of science and a safer, healthier environment.

Source: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Takoma Park, MD

April 12, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

Swedes embrace nuclear waste land

By John Tagliabue | Scotsman | 11 April 2010

INGER Nordholm quit her job as a hairdresser in the Swedish seaside town of Osthammar 12 years ago, fearing the chemical treatments she had to use were bad for her health. Now, the town is competing for the right to become Sweden’s permanent storage site for radioactive waste and Nordholm works for the company that wants to build it. She guides visitors through a temporary warehouse for nuclear waste, hoping to reassure them that it poses no danger to their health.

Eighty per cent of the town’s 21,000 inhabitants are in favour of the facility and Osthammar is one of two finalists among Swedish communities vying for the right to host the nuclear waste dump.

Sweden would seem an unlikely setting for such a competition as the country turned its back on nuclear power in the 1980s after less than 20 per cent approved of it in a referendum. But it has reversed course recently and is now planning to begin building new nuclear reactors, adding to the ten it already operates.

Legislation requires that before any new plants are built, the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company, SKB, must create permanent storage space for the radioactive waste the reactors produce.

SKB found 18 of 20 possible towns near proposed sites intrigued by their proposition. Then it had to whittle the list down to two, Osthammar and Oskarshamn, both already the sites of nuclear plants.

The company has now said it will ask the Swedish government later this year for permission to build the storage depot in Osthammar. If the government gives the green light, construction could begin some time after 2015.

Nuclear physicist and SKB chief executive Claes Thegerstrom attributed Swedes’ new attitude towards nuclear energy to fears over global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power plants do not produce carbon dioxide. […]

The dump’s opponents, Osthammar residents such as Mats Tornqvist, a retired chemist who returned to his native Osthammar from Stockholm, have conceded the fight, if not the argument.

“I’m a chemical engineer, I’ve worked with waste problems since 1985, I’ve read all the papers,” he said. “They can say all they want, they have no solution.”

He agreed with Jansson that the prospect of jobs brought people around. “We have a community here that is very dependent on this industry.” – Full article

April 11, 2010 Posted by aletho | Nuclear Power | Leave a comment